The Lesser of Two Evils

Leonard Read [masked]) was the founder and president of FEE beginning in 1946 until his death. September 26 marks the 106th anniversary of his birth.
This article first appeared in The Freeman, February 1963.This article was excerpted from the September 2004 issue
of The Freeman: Ideas On Liberty.

According to The
Columbia Encyclo­pedia, "the existence of only two major parties, as
in most English­ speaking countries, presupposes gen­eral public agreement on
constitutional questions and on the aims of government." The reason for
two parties is that each might keep a check on the other in order that nei­ther
party exceeds its constitutional bounds. The competitive two-party system, so
it was thought, would assure a continuum of moral as well as political
rectitude. The competi­tion would expose and thus rid the public offices of
charlatans; only statesmen would hold down the jobs.

Certainly the
two-party system aimed at, if it did not presuppose, honest candidates
contending for office; that is, each office seeker fairly presenting his own
beliefs, leav­ing to the voters the matter of choosing. In respectable
two-party theory the candidate tries to persuade the voters that his views are
the ones they should support. Clearly, the theory did not include the idea that
vying candidates should be nothing but mere responses to voter opinion poll~.
That would be senseless. Were this the case, we could now feed all voter
opinions into an elec­tronic computer and, within a few seconds, have all
legislation written for us!

Regardless of how
respectable the theory, its practice has come a cropper. Today, trim­ming is so
much in vogue that often a voter cannot cast a ballot except for one of two
trimmers. Heard over and over again is the apology, "Well, the only choice
I had was to vote for the lesser of two evils." Implicit in this
confession are a moral tragedy and a political fallacy which, in combination,
must eventually lead to economic disaster.

I.
The Moral Tragedy

It is morally tragic
whenever a citizen's only choice is between two wrongdoers--­that is, between
two trimmers.

A trimmer, according
to the dictionary, is one who changes his opinions and policies to suit the
occasion. In contemporary political life, he is any candidate whose position on
issues depends solely on what he thinks will have most voter appeal. He ignores
the dic­tates of his higher conscience, trims his per­sonal idea of what is
morally right, tailors his stand to the popular fancy. Integrity, the accurate
reflection in word and deed of that which is thought to be morally right, is
sac­rificed to expediency.

The above are severe
charges, and I do not wish to be misunderstood. One of countless personal
experiences will help clarify what is meant: A candidate for Congress sat
across the desk listening to my views about limited government. At the
conclusion of an hour's discussion he remarked, "I am in thorough accord
with your views; you are absolutely right. But I couldn't get elected on any
such platform, so I shall represent myself as hold­ing views other than
these." He might as well have added, "I propose, in my cam­paign, to
bear false witness."

No doubt the
candidate thought, on bal­ance, that he was justified, that righteousness would
be better served were he elected regardless of how untruthfully he represented
his position--than were he to stand for his version of the truth and go down to
defeat.

This candidate is
"a mixed-up kid." His values are topsy-turvy, as the saying goes. In
an egotism that has no parallel, he puts his election to office above honesty.
Why, asks the responsible voter, should I endorse dis­honesty by voting for
such a candidate? He has, on his own say-so, forsworn virtue by insisting on
bearing false witness. Does he think his ambition for office is right because
he needs a job? Then let him seek employ­ment where want of principle is less
harmful to others. Or, is his notion of rightness based on how much the rest of
us would benefit by having him as our representative? What? A person without
moral scruple representing us in Congress! The role of the legislator is to
secure our rights to life, liberty, and prop­erty-that is, to protect us
against fraud, violence, predation, and misrepresentation (false witness).
Would our candidate have us believe that "it takes a crook to catch a
crook"?

Such righteousness or
virtue as exists in the mind of a man does not and cannot manifest itself in
the absence of integrity-the honest, accurate reflection in deeds of one's real
beliefs. Without this virtue the other virtues must lie dormant and unused.
What else remains? It is doubtful if anything contributes more to the diseased
condition of society than the diminishing practice of integrity.

Those who attach this
much importance to integrity must perforce construe trimming as evil.
Therefore, when both candidates for public office are judged to be trimmers,
the one who trims less than the other is often regarded as "the lesser of
two evils." But, is he really? It must be conceded that there are
gradations of wrongdoing: killing is worse than stealing, and perhaps stealing
is worse than covetousness. At least, if wrongdoing is not comparative, then it
is self-evident that the best of us are just as evil as the worst of us; for
man is fallible, all men!

Principles Will
Not Bend

While
categories of wrongdoing are com­parative, it does not follow that wrong deeds
within any given category of evil are com­parative. For instance, it is murder
whether one man is slain, or two. It is stealing whether the amount is ten
cents or a thou­sand dollars. And, a lie is a lie whether told to one person or
to a million. "Thou shalt not kill". "Thou shalt not
steal". "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are derived from
principles. Principles do not permit of compromise; they are either adhered to
or surrendered.

Is
trimming comparative? Can one trim­mer be less at fault than another trimmer?
Does the quantity of trimming have anything whatsoever to do with the
matter? Or, rather, is this not a question of quality or character? To
trim is to ignore the dictates of higher conscience; it is to take flight from
integrity. Is not the candidate who will trim once for one vote likely to trim
twice for more votes? Does he not demonstrate by any single act of trimming, regardless
of how minor, that he stands ready' to abandon the dictates of conscience for
the place he seeks in the political sun? Does not the extent or quantity of
trimming merely reflect a judg­ment as to how much trimming is expedient?

If
the only relevant question at issue is whether or not a candidate will trim at
all, then trimming is not comparative and, thus, it would be incorrect to
report, "I cast my ballot for the lesser of two evils." Accuracy
would require, "I felt there was no choice except to cast a ballot for one
of two men, both of whom have sacrificed integrity for the hope of votes."

Irresponsible
Citizenship

We must not, however, heap all our con­demnation
on candidates who trim. There would be no such candidates were it not for
voters who trim. Actually, when we find only trimmers to vote for, most of us
are getting what we deserve. The trimmers who succeed in offering themselves as
candidates are, by and large, mere reflections of irresponsible
citizenship--that is, of neglected thinking, study, education, vigilance.
Candidates who trim and voters who trim are each cause and each effect; they
feed on each other.

To
repeat, when one must choose between men who forsake integrity, the situation
is tragic, and there is little relief at the polling level except as candidates
of integrity may be encouraged by voters of integrity. Impracti­cal idealism?
Of course not! Read Edmund Burke, one of the great statesmen of all time,
addressing his constituency:

But
his [the candidate's] unbiased opin­ion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men
liv­ing. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and
the constitution. They are a trust from Provi­dence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you,
not his industry only, but his judg­ment; and he betrays, instead of serving
you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

II.
The Political Fallacy

Is
it fallacious to believe that responsible citizenship requires casting a ballot
for one or the other of two candidates, regardless of how far the candidates
have departed from moral rectitude?

Before trying to arrive at an answer, let us
reflect on the reason why the so-called duty of casting a ballot, regardless of
circum­stance, is so rarely questioned. Quite obvi­ously, the duty to vote is
one of those sanc­tified institutions, such as motherhood, which is beyond
criticism. The obligation to vote at any and all elections, whatever the issues
or personalities, is equated with responsible citizenship. Voting is deeply
embedded in the democratic mores as a duty, and one does not affront the mores
without the risk of scorn. To do so is to "raise the dead"; it is to
resurrect questions that have been settled once and for all; it is to throw
doubt on custom, tradition, orthodoxy, the folkways!

Yet
any person who is conscious of our rapid drift toward the omnipotent state can
hardly escape the suspicion that there may be a fault in our habitual way of
looking at things. If the suspicion be correct, then it would be fatal never to
examine custom. So, let us bring the sanctity of voting in to the open and take
a hard look at it, not in the spirit of advocating something but of explor­ing
it.

Hitler vs.
Stalin

Now for the hard
look: Where is the American who will argue that responsible citizenship
requires casting a ballot if a Hitler and a Stalin were the opposing candi­dates?
"Ah," some will complain, "you carry the example to an
absurdity." Very well, let us move closer to home and our own experience.

Government in the U.S.A. has been
pushed far beyond its proper sphere. The Marxian tenet, "from each
according to ability, to each according to need," backed by the armed
force of the state, has become established polity. This is partly rationalized
by something called "the new economics." Within this kind of
political framework, it is to be expected that one candidate will stand for the
coercive expropriation of the earned income of all citizens, giving the funds
thus gathered to those in groups A, B, and C. Nor need we be surprised that his
opponent dif­fers from him only in advocating that the loot be given to those
in groups X, Y, and Z. Does responsible citizenship require casting a ballot
for either of these political plunder­ers? The citizen has no significant moral
choice but only an immoral choice in the event he has joined the unholy
alliance him­self and thinks that one of the candidates will deliver some of
the largess to him or to a group he favors. In the latter case, the problem is
not one of responsible citizenship but of irresponsible looting.

Registering a Protest

Does responsible citizenship require vot­ing
for irresponsible candidates? To ballot in favor of irresponsible candidates as
though it were one's duty is to misconstrue the mean­ing of duty. To cast a
ballot for a trimmer, because no man of integrity is offering him­self, does as
much as one can with a ballot to encourage other trimmers to run for office.
Can anyone conceive of any element of protest in such balloting? To vote for a
trim­mer goes further: it would seem to urge, as strongly as one can at the
polls, that men of integrity not offer themselves as candidates.

What
would happen if we adopted as a criterion: Never vote for a trimmer! Conced­ing
a generous liberality on the part of the electorate, millions of us would not
cast bal­lots. Would the end result of this substantial, nonviolent protest,
this large-scale demonstration of "voting by turning our backs," worsen
our situation? It is difficult to imag­ine how it could. For a while we would
con­tinue to get what we now have: a high per­centage of trimmers and
plunderers in public office, men who promise privileges in exchange for
ballots--and freedom. In time, however, with this silent but eloquent refusal
to participate, the situation might, conceivably, improve. Men of integrity and
high moral quality--statesmen--might show forth and, if so, we could add their
numbers to the few now in office.

Would
a return to integrity by itself solve our problem? No, for many men of
integrity do not understand freedom; or, if they do, are not devoted to it. But
it is only among men of integrity that any solution can begin to take
shape. Such men, at least, will do the right as they see the right; they tend
to be teachable. Trimmers and plunderers, on the other hand, are the enemies of
morality and freedom by definition; their motivations are below the level of
principles; they cannot see beyond the emoluments of office.1

Here is a thought to
weigh: If respect for a candidate's integrity were widely adopted as a
criterion for casting a ballot, millions of us, as matters now stand, would not
cast bal­lots. Yet, in a very practical sense, would not those of us who
protest in this manner be voting? Certainly, we would be counted among
that growing number who, by our conscious and deliberate inaction, proclaim
that we have no party. What other choice have we at the polling level? Would
not this encourage men of statesmanlike qualities to offer themselves in
candidacy?

A Sacred Institution

Why is so much emphasis placed upon voting as
a responsibility of citizenship?2
Why the sanctity attached to voting? Foremost, no doubt, is a carry-over from
an all-­but-lost ideal in which voting is associated with making choices
between honest beliefs, between candidates of integrity. We tend to stick with
the form without regard to what has happened to the substance. Further, it may
derive in part from the general tendency to play the role of Robin Hood,
coupled with a reluctance to acknowledge this prac­tice for what it is.
Americans, at least, have some abhorrence of forcibly taking from the few and
giving to the many without any sanction whatsoever. That would be raw
dictatorship. But few people with this propensity feel any pangs of conscience
if it can be demonstrated that "the people voted for it." Thus, those
who achieve political power are prone to seek popular sanction for what they
do. And, as government increases its plundering activities, more and more
citizens "want in" on the popular say­ so. Thus it is that pressures
increase for the extension of the franchise. Time was when only property
holders could vote or, per­haps, even cared to vote. In 1870 the fran­chise was
extended to Negroes and in 1920 to women. Now (1963) the drive is on to lower
the age from 21 to 18, and this has already been achieved in some places.

Frederic
Bastiat gave us some good thoughts on this subject:

"If law were restricted to protecting
all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than
the organized combination of the individual's right to self­ defense; if law
were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder­ is it
likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the
franchise?

"Under these circumstances, is.
it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme
good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to
peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who
had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

"If the law were confined to its
proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not
clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience
those who did not vote?"3

An Alternative

We can, it seems to
me, glean from the foregoing that there is no moral or political or social
obligation to vote merely because we are confronted with ballots having names
and/or issues printed thereon. Has this so­called obligation of a citizen to
vote, regardless of the ballot presentations, any more to support it than
political madness on the rampage? And, further, does this not deny to the
citizen the only alternative left to him ­not to endorse persons or measures he
regards as repugnant? When presented with two trimmers, how else, at this
level, is he to protest? Abstinence from ballot-casting would appear to be
his-only way to avoid being untrue to himself.

If
we seek more evidence than we now have as to the sacrosanctity of
ballot-casting as a citizenship duty, we need only observe the crusading spirit
of get-out-the-vote campaigns. One is made to feel like a slacker if he does
not respond.

To
rob this get-out-the-vote myth of its glamour, no more is required than to com­pare
ballot-casting as a means of selecting representatives with a method devoid
of all voter judgment: selection by lot. Politically unthinkable as it is,
reflect, just for example, on your own congressional district. Disqual­ify all
under 21, all of the insane, all illiter­ates, all convicts.4 Write the names of the
balance on separate cards to put into a mix­ing machine, and let some
blindfolded per­son withdraw one card. Presto! Here is your next representative
in Congress, for one term only. After all, how can a person qualify to
vote if he is not qualified to hold the office himself? And, further, it is
assumed, he will feel duty-bound to serve, as when called for jury duty.

Wanted: An "Ordinary
Citizen"

The first reaction to such a procedure is one
of horror: "Why, we might get only an ordinary citizen." Very well.
Compare such a prospect with one of two wrongdoers which all too frequently is
our only choice under the two-party, ballot-casting system. Further, I submit
that there is no govern­mental official, today, who can qualify as anything
better than an "ordinary citizen." How can he possibly claim any
superiority over those upon whose votes his election depends? And, it is of the
utmost importance that we never ascribe anything more to any of them. Not one
among the millions in officialdom is in any degree omniscient, all seeing, or
competent in the slightest to rule over the creative aspects of any other
citizen. The recognition that a citizen chosen by lot could be no more than an
ordinary citizen would be all to the good. This would auto­matically strip
officialdom of that aura of almightiness which so commonly attends it;
government would be unseated from its mas­ter's role and restored to its
servant's role, a highly desirable shift in emphasis.

Reflect on some of the other
probable consequences:

a.
With nearly everyone conscious that only "ordinary citizens" were
occupying political positions, the question of who should rule would lose its
significance. Immediately, we would become acutely aware of the far more
important question: What should be the extent of the rule? That we would press
for a severe limitation of the state seems almost self-evident.

b.
No more talk of a "third party" as a panacea. Political parties,
which have become all but meaningless as we know them, would cease to exist.

c.
No more campaign speeches with their promises of how much better we would fare
were the candidates to spend our income for us.

d. An end to campaign fundraising.

e.
No more self-chosen "saviors" catering to base desires in order to
win elections.

f. An end to that type
of voting in Con­gress which has an eye more to re-election than to what's
right.

g. The mere prospect of
having to go to Congress during a lifetime, even though there would be but one
chance in some 10,000, would completely reorient citizens' attention to the
principles which bear on government's relationship to society. Everyone would
have an incentive to "bone up," as the saying goes, if for no other
reason than not to make a fool of himself, just in case! There would be an
enormous increase in self-directed education in an area on which the future of
society depends. In other words, the strong tendency would be to bring out the
best, not the worst, in every citizen.

It would, of course, be absurd to work
out the details, to refine, to suggest the scope of a selection-by-Iot design,
for it hardly falls within the realm of either probability or possibility--at
least, not for a long, long time. Further, only folly would be heaped on
absurdity were one to advocate any meddling with the present machinery.

Reform Follows
Understanding

Why, if one believes mass voting to
be inferior to selection by lot, should one not urge immediate reform? Let me
slightly rephrase an explanation by Gustave Le Bon:

The reason is that it is not within
our power to force sudden transformations in complex social organisms. Nature
has recourse, at times, to radical measures, but never after our fashion, which
explains how, it is that nothing is more fatal to a people than the mania for
great reforms, however excellent these reforms may appear theoretically. They
would only be useful were it possible suddenly to change a whole nation of
people. Men are ruled by ideas, sentiments, customs-­-these are of men's
essence. Institutions (social organisms) and laws are but the outward
manifestation or outcome of the underlying ideas, sentiments, customs, in
short, character. To urge a different out­come would in no way alter men's char­acter--or
the outcome.5

Why, then, should
selection by lot be so much as mentioned? Merely to let the mind dwell on this
intriguing alternative to current political inanities gives all the ammunition
one needs to refrain from casting a ballot for one of two candidates, neither
of whom is guided by integrity. Unless we can divorce ourselves from this
unprincipled myth, we are condemned to a political competition that has only
one end: the omnipotent state. This would conclude all economic freedom and
with it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship. And even
freedom to vote will be quite worthless--as it is under any dictatorship.

Responsible
citizenship demands, first of all, a personal attention to and a constant
re-examination of one's own ideas, senti­ments, customs. Such scrutiny may
reveal that voting for candidates who bear false witness is not required of the
good citizen. At the very least, the idea merits thoughtful exploration.

********************************************************

1. If it be conceded
that the role of government is to secure "certain unalienable rights, that
among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
by what stretch of the imagination can this be achieved when we vote for those
who are openly committed to unsecuring these rights?

2. Responsibilities of
citizenship involve a host of personal attributes, first and foremost a duty to
one's Maker, duty to self, to family, to neighbors, and so on. Is it not evident,
therefore, that voting is a mere formality after the fact? It's much too
late to be a responsible citizen if the responsibility hasn't been exer­cised
before election day. Everybody voted for Khrushchev in the last Russian
election! Clearly, that was no evidence of responsible citizenship.

3. See The Law by
Frederic Bastiat, pp. 16-17. Obtainable from the Foundation for Economic
Education.

4. One might like to
disqualify everybody who receives gov­ernmental aid but, then, who would
remain? The very bread we eat is subsidized. Those who ride on planes or use
the mails, and so on, would be disqualified.

We are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians & Independents all working together to advance the cause of liberty and to remind our representatives to follow the Constitution!

This group is run locally.

This grassroots Meetup will help you network with other Liberty Lovers of Bexar County, and provide you with tools and information as well as activities to help with the local effort.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppresion; for if he violates this duty he estabalishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776